Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-11 > 1069555316

From: Rosie Bevan <>
Subject: Re: Emma, the wife of Guy IV de Laval (was: Bastards of Henry I)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:41:56 +1300
References: <005201c3b14c$96552860$0e0a86d9@oemcomputer>

Dear Chris

Thank you for a very interesting post.

I don't know whether this has been mentioned before, but Eyton, in his
Itinerary p.85, 182, says that Emma, half sister of Henry II, married both
Guy Laval and David ap Owen, Prince of North Wales. She was certainly
married to the latter by 1174 according to a Pipe Roll entry reproduced on
p.182, "Et pro pannis et apparatu sororis Regis quam David filius Oeni duxit
uxorem £8 7s per breve Regis et per Willielmum filium Johannis." This
probably explains the strange reference to a David earl of Norfolk by De
Broussillon. As Emma married David some 23 years after her father's death,
this is a somewhat late first marriage, so she is very likely to have had a
previous husband. Her appearance in the Pipe Rolls in 1214 would suggest
she was quite a bit younger than Henry II and born towards the end of
Geoffrey's life in 1151. The earliest reference to her in the Pipe Rolls
seems to be in early 1165 when she was with Queen Eleanor in Hampshire at
the time when Henry II was in Normandy. Guy V was still living at that point
as he is mentioned in the 1166 carta. Chronologically it is impossible that
this Emma could be wife of Guy IV or mother of Guy Laval V.

Eyton says this Emma is identified as the illegitimate daughter of Geoffrey
le Bel, Comte of Anjou by a woman of Maine in 'Diceto, and Chronicon de
origine Comitum Andegaviae'. (Another natural daughter of Geoffrey le Bel
was apparently Aldewide, wife of Ralph, junior Prince of Bourg-Deols).
Under this identification, there would be no consanguinity problem with
putative husband Guy Laval V. However, if Emma, his wife, really was
daughter of Reynold de Dunstanville as indicated by the Evron charter cited
by Douglas, clearly the two women could not be the same. It would be
interesting to see the text of this charter to see what it says. The other
reference given by Douglas, to NEHGR v.120 p. 230, consisting of a
correction by Charles Evans to his Royal Bye-Blows article, does not present
any evidence of her parentage.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Phillips" <>
To: "Rosie Bevan" <>; "Stewart Baldwin"
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 12:01 PM
Subject: Emma, the wife of Guy IV de Laval (was: Bastards of Henry I)

> I wrote:
> >(4) Emma, wife of Guy de Laval [can't see this discussed in the text, but
> >Keats-Rohan, "Domesday Descendants", p. 543, gives the same. However,
> >is evidence that an Emma, daughter of Reynald, Earl of Cornwall, married
> >Guy de Laval in the next generation - could Emma, wife of Guy de Laval,
> >really be a granddaughter of Henry?]
> Stewart Baldwin wrote:
> >Has anybody checked Keats-Rohan's citation of "Pipe Roll 31 Henry I,
> >29-ynb" to see if it offers confirmation?
> I've just checked the sources cited by Keats-Rohan in her two "Wido de
> Laval" entries, for Guy IV and Guy V de Laval (Domesday Descendants, p.
> 543).
> The three references to primary sources don't mention Emma (or, as far as
> can see, imply anything about her identity):
> (1) Clay, Early Yorkshire Charters, vol. 4, no 48 (p. 49) is a charter of
> Conan IV to the abbey of Bégard, dated 1158 and witnessed by "Guydone de
> Valle".
> (2) J. Hunter, ed., "Magnum Rotulum Scaccarii ... [31 Henry I]" (1833), p.
> 29, is an appearance of "Wido de Laval" in the Yorkshire and
> section of the pipe roll.
> (3) H. Hall, ed. Red Book of the Exchequer (Rolls Series no 99), i p. 421,
> is the 1166 carta of Henry de Lascy, which states that he owes the service
> of 60 knights of the old fee of Pontefract, of which Wido de Lanval has 20
> knights, a list of which is given.
> That leaves the source cited in the text in Keats-Rohan's entry for Guy
V -
> Bertrand de Broussillon's "La Maison de Laval", published in Paris in 5
> volumes, 1895-1903. This is a very detailed and heavily documented study
> the family, in which Guy IV and V are treated in the first volume, which
> covers 1020-1264.
> De Broussillon does know the story that Guy IV's wife Emma was a daughter
> Henry I - he says (p. 79) that it has even been pretended that a tomb had
> long been preserved at Clermont Abbey bearing the inscription "EMMA
> REGIS FILIA DOMINAQUE LAVALLENSIS" - but he says that there is no
> nor even any chronicle to support the tradition, and points out that
> natural daughters as recounted by Orderic Vitalis do not include an Emma.
> far as chronology goes, he argues that the marriage of Guy and Emma may
> taken place about 1121, that Guy IV died soon after 1130, and that Emma
> still living in 1152, without doubt being buried at Clermont Abbey.
> Among the numerous charters he transcribes or abstracts are a record dated
> 1142 of a confirmation by Guy [V] of a gift by his father to the canons of
> St Mary of La Roë, made with the consent of his mother "Ama" (p. 99), a
> charter of Guy V dated 1152, founding Clermont Abbey, again made with the
> consent of Emma his mother (p. 104) and a charter of Guy V for Savigny
> Abbey, dated 1153-1162, witnessed by the lady Emma, his mother (pp. 105,
> 106).
> De Broussillon also discusses Guy V's wife, also named Emma (p. 94), who
> been claimed as a daughter of Geoffrey Plantagenet. But he quotes the
> "Historia comitum andegavensium" as saying that Geoffrey's natural
> Emma married, about 1173, "David, comte de Norfolk" [?], so that she
> be identified with Guy V's wife. Among the charters in which she appears
> after Guy V's death are ones from 1197 (pp. 151, 152) and 1208 (p. 177).
> So de Broussillon doesn't know the parentage of either Emma, but doesn't
> accept the traditions making the earlier Emma a daughter of Henry I and
> later Emma a daughter of Geoffrey of Anjou.
> But Douglas Richardson has posted an extract from a charter of 1202, in
> which the later Emma, wife of Guy V de Laval, describes herself as the
> daughter of Reynold, Earl of Cornwall:
> Apparently this can only mean Reynold "de Dunstanville", the illegitimate
> son of Henry I. Given this, and the evidence of three separate documents
> that the earlier Emma was Guy V's mother, it seems that the traditional
> identification of her as a daughter of Henry I must be rejected -
> Guy V and his wife would be first cousins.
> Chris Phillips

This thread: